From XDCAM EX-1 to what?

I posted this to the general FCP forum, but I think it belongs here instead...

I am shooting with the great Sony XDCAM EX-1 in HD 720p50 (which will probably become the most used HD standard format for HD broadcast in Europe where I live). I am editing in FCP6 using the XDCAM EX 720p50 (35 mbps) preset. The video plays back perfect in the canvas on my MacPro. When I export the sequence via Compressor and choose the AppleProRes 422 Quicktime setting, the exported video also look perfect (and plays back nicely on my Mac), but the size (2 minutes and 12 sec playing time, 2,9 Gbyte size) and datarate is too big for any use other than on my Mac. So, the question is:

Since this is the first time I have been shooting in 50p, I have no experience with converting this video to formats that most people can watch. In other words, what are the best settings in Compressor to create Quicktime movies suitable for:

3. A Quicktime move suitable for my AppleTV (I have had ok results with creating H.264 files as big as 1280x720 with 4061 kbps and 24 fps).

4. It looks like YouTube will show video with higher quality these days. What is the best format and compression to use when I create the video I will upload to YouTube? (Wonder if they will accept and show real 16:9 soon...?)

5. Is it realistic to use 50 fps in the HD videos I will distribute on the web, or will this fast frame rate be too much for most computers out there?

6. Is H.264 a compression that most PC and Mac-users will handle, or should I choose a different compression?

7. Will I get better results if I create new sequences with different video compression within FCP and paste my clips into them before I export the sequence, or is it ok to use Compressor with different settings?

I am thankful for any quality response to these questions :) i will let you know how this develops, and where you can find the final video online later.

ha- too many questions for me. But in general from a ProRes HQ master at 720p50 you can then derive all of your other formats at their best possible looks. I create my Youtube and H.264 QuickTime web videos and my SD DVDs starting from an HD ProRes HQ master and it looks great. Each format you mentioned has its own special formula for the best look- worth researching on Google to find out more.

Thanks for taking time to respond, Noah! Yes, searching for the best solutions is what I need to do... If there was a database of experience that we could pick solutions from, that would have been something. I will hopefully share my conclusions if/when I found the best answers to my own questions.

One basic question that you might be able to help me with, Noah, is this: When the source is 720p50 (50 fps), is there anything I should know before converting to a different format? I mean, is 50 fps to fast for most computers, and will I get a better result if I convert to 30 fps or 25 fps? I love how 50 fps look with progressive scan - the movements are excellent. I see a lot of video, like commercials on tv that were shot as progressive but converted to interlaced, and they don't look good on the tv. - I hope I can get better results as long as I stay in the progressive domain, and I can do that when sharing my videos on the web, right?

In many European countries, the switch from analog to digital distribution has proved that there is not enough bandwidth to support all interests. Therefore - that's my impressions from discussions and documents also distributed by EBU (the European Broadcasting Union where most countries are members) - they have suggested that we use 720p (1280x720 progressive) as the standard for distributing digital television. - Of course, most countries will record in a higher resolution. In Norway (where I live), we really don't want to use interlaced video, so 1080i is not an option. Recording and editing in 1080p is fine, and we will then downconvert to 720p before transmitting the signal via cable and through air.

I choose to record in 720p50 rather than 720p25 or 1080p25 on my EX-1, because I see much better qualtiy on movements. Interlaced, digital video is a big joke, I think, and most professionals seem to agree.

[Helge Krabye]"Interlaced, digital video is a big joke, I think, and most professionals seem to agree.
"

Well I'm a professional and I'd rather have higher resolution interlace than lower resolution progressive. Of course I'd rather have 1080 50P but it's not going to happen in broadcast just yet. The BBC agree with me and in terms of quality the BBC are a benchmark for the rest of the world. What the EBU are saying and what actual Broadcasters are doing is very different.

When you have 1080 interlaced, the vertical resolution is lower than 720 progressive, because the interlaced signal is split into 2 x half the image. So it's a myth that interlaced 1080 is better than 720p, isn't it? Another problem with interlaced is that fast movements will never look good, simply because the object has time to move between the first and second set of lines. This is what I have been told, and I have seen demonstrations that prove it. - There is one advantage with 1080 though, and that is the added resolution horizontally (1920 dots pr. line vs. 1280 on 720p). This is an advantage in some cases, but personally, I prefer the advantage that 50 fps gives for sports and fast movements. This is from wikipedia:

"In the USA, 720p is used by ABC, Fox Broadcasting Company and ESPN because the smoother image is desirable for fast-action sports telecasts, whereas 1080i is used by CBS, NBC, HBO, Showtime and Discovery HD due to the crisper picture particularly in non-moving shots."

Don't agree with any of that I'm afraid, having worked with extensively with HD for the last 3 years my personal experience leads me to believe that 1080i does NOT have problems with fast movement. I've done many tests with fast movement shots (aircraft flying at speeds up to 300 miles per hour) in 1080i and 720 50P and I don't see hardly any difference in the way motion works - what I do see is the increased resolution that 1080 offers. I know the theories but I trust my eyes more than theories.

OK, I respect you for your work and experience with HD, and since I'm a beginner, I will not argue. I just refer to other articles and discussions. - Maybe other user on this list want to share their view?

Ok, Mr Connor, I now have "shooter envy". Fantastic stuff!! Please give us some details on what it was shot with, cameras, lenses, frame rates, and all the other goodies.

This past friday, I had the opportunity to fly in one of only two remaining Ford TriMotors. http://www.valleairport.com/ Upon landing, I was shooting the left landing gear (EX-1) and we had 50 feet (15m) from the tire to the desert. It was a hard gravel runway. We crossed a road and the tires left the runway as the plane rose about a foot or so. When it touched down again, the plane went a bit left and the tire was in the desert. The pilot corrected right and the wing tip dipped halfway to the ground and my pucker factor rose a few degrees. However, the plane fishtailed a bit this way and that way and it all straightened.

Afterward, I asked the pilot if he was at all nervous and he said "Nervous about what?"

Great stuff Steve, the camerwork was brilliant, the subject hardly ever strayed from the centre of the frame. What encoder will you be doing your Blu-Ray with and what players will there be to guarantee playing what you burn? No menus I presume though, I'm told they won't be possible, not that I care, just want to have the movie playing!

[Michael Slowe]"What encoder will you be doing your Blu-Ray with and what players will there be to guarantee playing what you burn? No menus I presume though, I'm told they won't be possible, not that I care, just want to have the movie playing!"

I'm not decided about the Blu-Ray duplication yet, I'm exploring a number of options.

It's nice to know that the "Journey" is still airworthy and flying. The last time It was here (several years ago) it was being used in a movie and those in the know informed me that the B17 was flying directly to the air museum the next morning and that was supposed to be its last journey. Myself and another enthusiast friend drove down to Boundary Bay airport the next morning to see it take off because we both thought we'd never see another one fly again.

Very nice footage! The colors, the sharpness, the composition. - About the interlaced and fast movements -discussion, as long as you follow the moving objects with the camera, you will of course have no problems. (This is also why we always follow the fast moving cars etc. in action movies, instead of standing still and watching them fly by. - Between 2:51 and 2:53 in you Flying Legends trailer, you will see the negative effect of the interlaced video if you look at the big ariplane standing in the front when the small plane (that the camera follows) is passing in the background. The plane standing on the ground would look much better if the video was shot in 50p.

It might be helpful to note that interlaced shooting actually IMPROVES the temporal resolution of a piece of video. The perceived frame rate doubles if you can take two "snapshots" of an object in motion over the same period of time - as in interlacing 60 "half-resolution" frames over the time period that would otherwise be used to record 30 progressive frames.

Given the larger raster of 1080 and the motion smoothing effect of interlaced shooting - 1080i becomes a great choice for objects in motion.

720p would be better if, for instance, you wanted to pull still frames off static or slow moving video. Then the temporal resolution wouldn't help you, but the higher density progressive raster would.

Keep in mind that 720p60 (or 50 in PAL) is also 60 snapshots per second so the temporal resolution is as good as 1080i60 (or 50 in PAL). Actually if you consider 1920x1080 is 540 lines at 1/60 and 1280x720 is 720 lines at 1/60 one might say 720 has more lines more closely together in 1/60. I've seen arguments on both sides of this but both have a temporal change occurring every 1/60.